Adult Social Care

Errata

The Department of Health is expected to publish a green paper setting out proposals for the long-term reform of adult social care funding early in 2009.

monkeyspanner

I look forward to reading it, but will not hold my breath for any real action to be taken. This government is very good at producing reports, consultative documents, and commissioning enquiries; but very poor at doing anything effective. Except claiming MP's expenses!!

Trebor16

I remember Tony Blair's words at the 1997 Labour Party conference when he said that he didn't want to live in a country where the elderly were forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. 12 years later and the status quo still remains. The only difference is that more people are aware of the deception that has been perpertrated by the NHS and social services departments across the country.

I doubt the Green Paper will make any difference at all.

treliac

Trebor16 wrote: »

people are aware of the deception that has been perpertrated by the NHS and social services departments across the country.

I doubt the Green Paper will make any difference at all.

Who don't make the rules but have to carry out government policy.

margaretclare

Trebor16 wrote: »

I remember Tony Blair's words at the 1997 Labour Party conference when he said that he didn't want to live in a country where the elderly were forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. 12 years later and the status quo still remains. The only difference is that more people are aware of the deception that has been perpetrated by the NHS and social services departments across the country.

I doubt the Green Paper will make any difference at all.

Unfortunately, it may be a matter of 'where the money is going to come from'. Especially in view of the Bank of England's recent opposition to the Government borrowing any more money. More and more people are losing their jobs which means more people claiming benefits and fewer paying tax.

All that the Government has done recently has been done on borrowed money - the extra £60 winter payment, the bank bail-outs, you name it.

Many years ago - the mid-1970s in fact - I was on a management course for my job in the NHS and one of the possibilities discussed there was that there might at some point in the future need to be an introduction of charges for 'hotel services' within the NHS - bed and board basically - but most people thought that this would be too much of a political 'hot potato', that it would be political suicide in other words. However, the idea has been around for a very long time.

I remain firmly of the opinion that medical and nursing care should be paid for by the NHS but I personally would not mind paying for 'bed-and-board'. Provided that was of a decent standard, of course.

There are illnesses which occur more commonly in the older age-groups but that does not mean that they can be written off as only needing 'care' as distinct from 'nursing'.

monkeyspanner

margaretclare wrote: »

Unfortunately, it may be a matter of 'where the money is going to come from'. Especially in view of the Bank of England's recent opposition to the Government borrowing any more money. More and more people are losing their jobs which means more people claiming benefits and fewer paying tax.

All that the Government has done recently has been done on borrowed money - the extra £60 winter payment, the bank bail-outs, you name it.

Many years ago - the mid-1970s in fact - I was on a management course for my job in the NHS and one of the possibilities discussed there was that there might at some point in the future need to be an introduction of charges for 'hotel services' within the NHS - bed and board basically - but most people thought that this would be too much of a political 'hot potato', that it would be political suicide in other words. However, the idea has been around for a very long time.

I remain firmly of the opinion that medical and nursing care should be paid for by the NHS but I personally would not mind paying for 'bed-and-board'. Provided that was of a decent standard, of course.

There are illnesses which occur more commonly in the older age-groups but that does not mean that they can be written off as only needing 'care' as distinct from 'nursing'.

It probably won't be a popular view but I think we need to take a long hard look at what the NHS will pay for. I believe the priority must be given to illness and disease and their prevention and the NHS should not pay for things like:
Tattoo Removal
Unneccessary cosmetic surgery
Corrective surgery when private cosmetic surgery goes wrong
IVF
Viagra
Gender reassignment
Drug abuse (alcohol, tobacco or other chemicals)

This does not mean the services should not be provided but that there cost should not be provided free or at minimal prescription cost.

Now I am going to put my hard hat on and head for the bunker whilst the disapproval rains down.

margaretclare

I agree with you about all those things.

There are several other items that could be added to that list. One possibility would be a much harder crack-down on what has been called 'health tourism'. Huge amounts of money are known to be owed by people from other countries who have had free treatment which they weren't entitled to, but who have departed without paying.

All the items that you list above involve an element of choice. If a person decides to pay for a tattoo and then later decides to have it removed, that is the person's own choice. All of the illnesses we see discussed in these threads are not ones that the person could have foreseen or prevented, and personal choice was not involved.

Viagra - well, we'd have been willing to pay for that. Except that we found it didn't work.

DH and I remain grateful for all the things that the NHS does provide - he'd have been dead if these services weren't available. When he was unhappy in a 6-bedded ward I offered to pay for a private room for him, only there weren't any! The few that there were, were only used for 'clinical need'.

Trebor16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

It probably won't be a popular view but I think we need to take a long hard look at what the NHS will pay for. I believe the priority must be given to illness and disease and their prevention and the NHS should not pay for things like:
Tattoo Removal
Unneccessary cosmetic surgery
Corrective surgery when private cosmetic surgery goes wrong
IVF
Viagra
Gender reassignment
Drug abuse (alcohol, tobacco or other chemicals)

This does not mean the services should not be provided but that there cost should not be provided free or at minimal prescription cost.

Now I am going to put my hard hat on and head for the bunker whilst the disapproval rains down.

I don't disagree with you at all on that one Monkeyspanner. Sign me up to your campaign!!!:D

bunny999

Where do you draw the line if are using the own fault / avoidable argument fault argument? How about not treating people who have been in car crashes, sports injuries , pregnant women , cancer caused by diet / lifestyle - as all these people have exercised a personal choice that has resulted in their needing treatment.

Errata

Lots of older people in residential care because of drug abuse: strokes caused by smoking 40 a day for donkeys years, brain gone to pot through heavy drinking.
Life is never straightforward.

Gavin83

I really don't see the issue with the elderly selling their homes to pay for their care. After all, if they are entering long term care they won't be returning home and therefore no longer need the property. What else will they do with it? Besides, if it was fully state funded then where will the money come from? It also brings an issue on the whole top up scheme, some homes are more expensive than others for a reason. Should someone who has lived on benefits their whole life really be entitled to better care than someone who has several hundred thousand in the bank?